ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN

ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE
*
Ejaz Ahmed

Abstract
The word ‘accountability’ has been one of the most popular political slogans in
Pakistan. Though only a political slogan, the phrases like, ‘accountability for all’,
‘across-the-board accountability’ and ‘Pakistan has no future until the menace of
corruption is seriously tackled’, are essentially a significant part of the narrative on
th
accountability. Pakistan is ranked 120 out of 180 countries according to the
Corruption Perception Index-2019 (Transparency International Ranking). It is virtually
locked in a vicious cycle of relatively high and widespread corruption. The word
‘accountability’ is a buzzword in routine discourses of all segments of society. Rooting
out corruption from the society is, indeed, a daunting task. In the broader sense, it
entails educating and training every citizen and institution to develop consciousness of
being accountable for the outcome of an assigned role. Pakistan has not yet been able
to develop and implement a holistic accountability regime despite establishing various
anti-corruption institutions. This article argues that corruption in Pakistan is
systemic, wherein, the existing accountability system is badly entangled in dealing
with financial corruption only. There is a dire need to revisit current accountability
laws to curb the menace of corruption effectively. The scope and meaning of
`accountability' cannot be confined to financial corruption only. It is critical to clearly
understand the theoretical concepts of corruption and the core sense of accountability,
especially by the stakeholders. Whistleblowing is a valuable source of information to
fight systemic corruption and the implementation of effective policies to protect
whistle-blowers is essential. The purpose of the article is to give an academic
perspective of accountability, with a view to suggesting a way forward to implement a
system of accountability in its true sense that 'every individual and organization is
fully accountable to a legislative forum for all of its/their actions and performances'.
This sense of accountability needs to be woven in the accountability discourse for its
broader application in the social, moral, professional, legal, political, and
administrative domains of Pakistani society.

Keywords: Pakistan, Policy making, Systemic Corruption, Accountability

Introduction

D iscourse on corruption and accountability, beside terrorism, has

consumed the Pakistanis more than perhaps any other national issue in
the recent past. According to Corruption Perception Index-2019 (CPI-
2019), as reported by Transparency International, Pakistan is the 120 th corrupt

*
Mr. Ejaz Ahmed is a PhD Scholar at Department of Government and Public Policy (GPP),
Faculty of Contemporary Studies, National Defence University Islamabad, Pakistan.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

76 EJAZ AHMED

nation out of 180 countries. CPI is the most widely used indicator of public
sector corruption worldwide. The following table based on the last ten years
(2010-2019) ranking of Pakistan in corruption can help in understanding the
trend and level of corruption.1

In academic perspective, corruption is of several types and is not restricted

to financial and economic domains only. Primarily, corruption includes interest-
based practices, personal gains, bribery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement,
trafficking, pilferage, smuggling, kick-backs, deception, extravagant waste of
public money, illegitimate business dealings, money-laundering, favouritism,
nepotism and cronyism, gaining power by manipulation or by using backdoor
channels, and/or exploiting the official/departmental status for personal gains.
Breach of integrity is a broader definition of corruption. Deviant, non-compliant
and immoral behaviour is also one form of corruption. The fact that unabated
and widespread corruption has become endemic in our society is profoundly
frustrating. It is incredibly disheartening to see that no serious efforts are being
made, at the policy level, to put into place systems and structures that could
eliminate systemic corruption, to lift the society from such abasement and
degradation. The literature defines systemic corruption as "an institutionalized,
endemic manipulation of a system by the individual(s) or
network(s)/organisation(s), taking advantage of weaknesses in the processes
and systems for illicit gains, where there are leadership deficiencies, collusion
and/or abuse of power." It is not confined to financial corruption only. It exists
when corrupt behaviour is not rare and isolated, but pervasive and entrenched.
Pakistan is presently plagued with all types of corruption and presents a
scenario, wherein, the menace of widespread corruption has permeated the very
fabric of our socio-political culture.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 77

Eradication of systemic corruption, therefore, is of paramount importance

for building Pakistan's political, social and economic reputation in the comity of
nations. Pakistan inherited, enacted or established almost all the laws, rules and
institutions, which exist for accountability in any modern and civilized society.
The existing system of accountability has five types of applicability of laws. One
set of rules and laws are for the ruling elite. Another set of rules are for the
ruling civilian elite. The third category of rules is for the collaborators of the
ruling elite — the fourth for the rich and the powerful, and the fifth for the
ordinary citizens of Pakistan.2 'Accountability' is, therefore, a subject which
needs scholarly attention. There is a need for an exposition and a review of the
concept of accountability for redemption of accountability mechanisms. After
an exhaustive review of international and domestic literature, it has been
observed that the focus of most of the studies has been on financial and political
corruption, whereas, empirical research on the core sense of accountability
remains sparse. Countering financial corruption is an essential aspect of it,
however, accountability is a multi-faceted, broader and a relatively complex
phenomenon that needs to be understood in its core, sense when formulating
national accountability policy. A comprehensive study of whistleblowing
policies and regulations in various countries reveals that setting up a stand-
alone whistleblowing mechanism for both the public and private sectors can
play an important role not only in combating corruption but also in protecting
whistle-blowers.
This paper carries out an analysis of the concept of accountability from an
academic perspective. It also suggests a way forward to weave in the core sense
of accountability that 'Everyone is accountable to some superior authority for
his or her actions', in the national accountability policy for its broader
application in the social, moral, professional, legal, political, and administrative
domains of Pakistani society.

Origin of Accountability
The notion of accountability is as old as the history of humankind. Its usage
and practical manifestation in every society have existed in one way or the
other. Historically, the term accountability has been 'a process of accounting
and more precisely the bookkeeping'. It was in the year 1085, when William-I
after the conquest of England, ordered to have a count of all the property that
his people possessed under his reigns. His agents painfully undertook a detailed
survey of each property and kept a record in the books called 'Doomsday Books'.
It was primarily done by William I to lay down the foundations of his royal
governance. All the property holders were required to swear on oath for the
supremacy of the crown. The record of the property was never intended to
confiscate or levy the tax but to ensure a robust centralized control and count of
the wealth the crown had within his kingship.3

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

78 EJAZ AHMED

Etymologically 'Accountability' is a Latin word 'accomptare', which means

‘to account’. It led to the word 'computare', i.e., 'to calculate'. It is derived from
the word 'putare' meaning ‘to reckon with’.4 There are numerous definitions of
accountability in the available literature. However, the definition given by
Richard Grant Mulgan has a broad concurrence, that “the core of accountability
is the obligation to answer to a superior for one’s actions and to accept
appropriate remedies including sanctions.”5

There are three significant aspects of this definition. Firstly, as the

justifications are given to some other person, which lead to social interaction
and conversation, it becomes external. Secondly, the person exercising the
authority to seek justification of actions may impose sanctions, which are bound
to be accepted. Lastly, the superior authority has the legal powers to seek
clarifications and impose penalties. This is although one of the most
straightforward definitions, it needs to be further explained for clarification of a
few essential elements that it contains. A person means any individual
irrespective of his or her stature and standing in society. It can also be any
group, agency or public or private organization. Whereas, the accountability
forum can be a nominated individual, a judicial court, any agency or federal or
provincial legislative forum or an accountability institution.

Identical concepts related to ‘accountability’ exist such as responsibility,

efficiency, equity, responsiveness, transparency, democracy, answerability,
fairness and productivity, which are extensively used during informal
discussions.6 Though some are closely interrelated, their boundaries are not
clear. Most of these terms are distinctly identified as separate concepts in the
scholarly works of literature. Koppell7 has distinguished the concept of
accountability in five different dimensions, i.e., transparency, liability,
controllability, responsibility and responsiveness. There is an on-going
intellectual debate on some dimensions like the term ‘transparency’, though
considered instrumental, is not acknowledged as fundamental to accountability.
In the same context, the term ‘responsiveness’ is viewed as evaluative and not
the analytical dimension. The process of accountability is essentially linked with
individual or collective performance, conduct and behaviour irrespective of its
outcomes. It involves the essential aspects of responsibility and responsiveness
in a highly truthful, fair, impartial, transparent and unbiased behaviour. In this
broad sense, accountability becomes a highly contested concept 8 as there is no
consensus in the literature on the standard behaviour of a human being because
of universal diversification in behaviours. 9 Here, it becomes closer to the aspect
of personal virtues discussed in more details in the succeeding paras.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 79

Accountability and Muslim History

The word 'Hesab' has been mentioned many a time in the Holy Quran in
different verses.10 Hesab or 'account' is the origin of accounting, and the
references in the Holy Quran are to 'account for' all aspects related to human
activities. Thus, being the believer in Islam, every Muslim is 'accountable' in a
generic sense. The person entrusted to 'Hesba', is called the 'Mohtasib' (i.e.
Ombudsman). The institution of Mohtasib is among the most distinctive
features of the social and economic-administrative history of Islam. Prophet
Muhammad (PBUH) was the first Ombudsman in the world to establish the
institution of Mohtasib and serve justice not only to the poor and downtrodden
of Arabia of that time, but also was the pioneer to lay the foundations of justice
for the entire humanity. The concept of accountability fostered by the Prophet
of Islam (PBUH) has, however, morality at its core. It is the moral character of
the individuals in the society which shapes their behaviour, both in private and
public life. The Prophet (PBUH) groomed his followers in such a way that they
used to come forward to confess their crimes and face punishments, instead of
hiding it.

Notions of Accountability
 Islamic Concept of Accountability
The concept of accountability in Islam is derived from the Quran.
As believers, all Muslims have been made aware in this verse:
"Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see
it"(Quran 99:7-8)
Thus, a simple correlation between hesab and accounting in Islam is
the obligation of every Muslim to discharge their given responsibilities
as per the teachings of the Holy Book. Islam is believed to follow the
broader concept than the contemporary sense of accountability since
conventional accountability mechanisms do not extend beyond human
society and have no faith in any connectivity with God. It is not
restricted to financial accountability only, but goes far beyond,
wherein, all activities are perceived to be accountable. In the Islamic
system of administration, no one is above the law. The concept of
Mohtasib's office has its roots in Islamic culture. Even the head of an
Islamic state is accountable. Similarly, the public servants, the
judiciary, the armed faces and all other segments of society are
accountable, if their acts are ultra vires to laws and rules.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

80 EJAZ AHMED

 Accountability is Either a Virtue or a Mechanism

As mentioned earlier, the scholarly literature is excessively divergent
and diversified on the term 'accountability'. There are different
dimensions, perspectives, and approaches. To reduce the conceptual
confusion, the two most discussed concepts of this term have been
chosen; wherein, we need to distinguish whether the concept of
accountability is a virtue, or a mechanism.11 Though, both are highly
valued and convincing, these are distinctive/distinguished from each
other as far as their routine respective usage is concerned, as virtue
pertains to human instinct, whereas, mechanism belongs to a system of
parts working together in a machine or pieces of machinery.

 Accountability as Virtue
Virtue is a trait and an attribute that is believed to be an ethical or
moral quality par excellence. It is highly valued and appreciated as a
foundational principle to form a good society. A virtuous person enjoys
a highly respected position for contributing collective and individual
greatness in the society he lives in. It is the behaviour that reflects high
moral standards, i.e., only doing the right thing, while disregarding all
wrongdoings.12 When accountability is viewed as a virtue, it implies a
desirable quality possessed by a state, government organizations, firms,
etc., collectively as well as individually. Accountability in this sense is
not necessarily viewed as instituting mechanisms, employing different
methods and techniques, but about defining and preventing
undesirable behaviour both, collectively and individually. In an
exceptionally broader sense, or rhetorically speaking, accountability is
to act intuitionally, willingly and freely in a highly transparent,
equitable, fair and compliant way, which to an extent is closer to the
notions of responsive and responsible manners. All human beings are
not alike; thus, there is no consensus on one's accountable behaviour.
Human standards vary, depending on the context of the conduct and
response both collectively as an organization or an individual as a
human being. It is generally said that personal conduct and moral
character of every human being are closely linked with his accountable
behaviour. It is a true reflection of his ethical values and moral
principles such as efficiency, professional discipline, dignity, equity,
impartiality, courtesy and fairness in his day-to-day dealings. It shows
good or bad response and right or wrong behaviour in the discharge of
duties. Accountability in this sense is, therefore, an ethical virtue, since
ethics are the foundational principles and rules that govern the moral
values of one’s behaviour. It is, therefore, particularly important to
improve ethics for inducing the core sense of accountability.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 81

 Accountability as a Mechanism
The other predominant view is that accountability is a mechanism. It is
referred to as an institutional arrangement, methods, and techniques
devised and implemented/practiced through some legal institutions,
i.e. accountability forums. The process of accountability works as a
system fully equipped to ensure effective and efficient outcomes. When
used in this context, accountability is an institutional arrangement,
whereby any individual or establishment can be considered
accountable to another person or institution.13 In this sense, the
essential concept of accountability is not so much the conduct of an
individual, but the manners by which institutional arrangements
govern the behaviour of the individual(s). The focus of accountability,
as per this concept, is no longer, on the individual acts and deeds, but
on how he is required to justify his acts before an accountability forum
constituted through legislation.

Facets of Accountability
Academically speaking, accountability has been separated in different
facets, though all are not widely accepted. 14 All these facets are grouped under
different approaches/models. These are political, bureaucratic, personal,
professional, administrative, social, financial and legal. The process of
accountability, when employed in its core sense, is not confined to one facet
only. Evidently, the existing system of accountability in Pakistan is confined to
financial aspect only, thus, disregarding other facets of accountability. It is,
therefore, particularly important to understand all other facets of accountability
to make the system of accountability wholesome and all-encompassing. Though
by definition, it is evident that there is no exception to face the process of
accountability, this question has led to the rhetoric that accountability should
not be selective and should be across the board. It sounds very logical. A
relatively common phrase used in the literature is 'problem of many hands'. 15
The literature on the subject has suggested four strategies to ensure a fair and
free process of accountability, which does not undermine the confidence and
trust of the people.

 Corporate Accountability
By pursuing corporate accountability strategy, the whole
organization/set-up/department/group can be investigated and held
responsible accordingly by the legal or administrative forum. After
having identified and substantiated the core issues through substantial
evidence, proceed to single out the individual(s), who is liable to justify
his/her acts, resulting in heavy losses either by design or by mere

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

82 EJAZ AHMED

irresponsible and incompetent approach towards the assigned

responsibilities.

 Hierarchical Accountability
There is always a boss at the top overall responsible for ensuring
efficient performance from a chain of subordinates. In a hierarchal
accountability strategy, the process is initiated from the top and
gradually travels down the ladder for initiating penal actions against
those failing to justify their deeds.

 Collective Accountability
All public organizations are a collection of individuals, belonging to
various ranks and file, which are assigned specific responsibilities and
are also liable to follow the prescribed rules and regulations. In a way,
they all are collectively accountable to the legal forums for identifying
the issues concerning the performance of the organization. Therefore,
the forum can pursue the collective accountability strategy, i.e., all for
one approach and get hold of any individual of the organization and
question him about the functioning of his set-up. However, practically
this strategy has flaws; legally as well as ethically it may not yield the
desired results. An individual accepting the collective failures may
resort to blame throwing, thus, complicating the entire process of fair
and flawless process of accountability. This strategy, however, proves to
be effective in specific small organizations, functioning with relatively
fewer individuals.

 Individual Accountability
Given the core sense of accountability, wherein, everyone is
accountable for his or her deeds, individual accountability strategy is
considered the most effective approach. As discussed above, in
pursuance of corporate, hierarchal or collective accountability
strategies, fixing responsibility at the time/stage of judgment may be
quite tricky. Identifying an individual and apportion the blame of
failures and wrongdoing may not be legally justified by any
accountability forum. However, adopting individual accountability, i.e.,
each for himself approach, every individual member of the society is
held proportionately accountable for his or her involvement, resulting
into a disreputable behaviour. It is considered a logical strategy, since
everyone is judged, based on his genuine contribution rather than his
official position. Individually, the person will be unable to hide behind
the organization or his superiors and peers.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 83

Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing is the disclosure by the employees about alleged
wrongdoing, unethical practices or acts, irregular, illegal or corrupt practices by
employers which may be considered as a violation of the law or as a blatant
fraud or corruption. The significance of employee whistle-blowers has led to a
broad consensus amongst scholars and practitioners for being essential to
expose and prevent corruption. Internal whistleblowing includes revealing
alleged ethical or legal breaches to an authority within an organisation, and
external whistleblowing relates to the disclosure of misconduct to an authority
outside an organisation. Although employees who report wrongdoing always
feel a moral responsibility to do so, however, fear of retaliatory actions from
colleagues and management is indeed a vital countervailing element. The best-
practice standards of international bodies, advocate for adequate legal
protection for whistle-blowers against tangible employment actions (such as
dismissal or demotion) and other forms of retaliation. Findings of a recent
research16 suggest that whistle-blower protection indeed fosters the reporting of
misbehaviour. However, the aim of increasing the detection and deterrence of
misbehaviour seem more intricate to achieve. Hence, these two issues should be
carefully considered when designing whistle-blower-protection policies.

Accountability in Pakistan
The Prevention of Corruption Act-1947 (PCA-1947), the Pakistan Penal
Code-1860 (PPC-1860), and the National Accountability Ordinance-1999 (NAO-
1999) are existing laws to deal with corruption in Pakistan. There are two Anti-
Corruption Authorities (ACAs), National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal
Investigation Agency (FIA) at Federal level and four Anti-Corruption
Establishments (ACEs) operating at Provincial level, which are empowered to
investigate into various cases of public sector corruption. Accountability Courts
have been established under NAO-1999 and deal with the cases sent by NAB.
The Central and Provincial Special Courts have been set up under the
Criminal Law Amendment Act-1958, to deal with the cases sent by FIA and
ACEs, respectively. Besides offices/authorities like Public Procurement
Regulatory Authority (PPRA), Public Accounts Committees (PACs), the Judicial
Commission, Election Commission of Pakistan, Auditor General of Pakistan,
there is another set of institutions like the State Bank of Pakistan, the
Competition Commission of Pakistan and the Securities and Exchange
Commission of Pakistan set up to check financial irregularities and incidences
of corruption and corrupt practices. Then, there are twelve independent
institutions of Ombudsman (Mohtasib) at the federal and provincial levels in
Pakistan also established on the idea of the Islamic concept of 'administrative
accountability.' These Ombudsmen work independently to serve and protect

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

84 EJAZ AHMED

citizens' interests. The anti-corruption mechanism in Pakistan appears to be a

complex web of laws and institutions.

A Brief Performance Review

When distinct governmental institutions allegedly serve ruling coalition
agendas, this process is called 'politicization' of systems. 17 The extent of
politicization of such institutions would enable readers to understand the
overall performance of anti-corruption agencies. In the context of Pakistan,
various public administration scholars have blamed the civil service of serving
those in power.18 The traditional approach to bureaucracy — an efficient
machine, marked by specific impersonal attributes, capable of "treating
everyone without prejudice to the person"—has seldom been seen in Pakistan in
practice.19 Bureaucracy, otherwise, slow in performing its duties, appears to
become remarkably efficient, when it is called upon to provide services to
dominant classes.20
The intertwined behaviour of the judiciary and politics in Pakistan has also
been described as 'politicization of politics' 21 or 'politicization of the judiciary'.22
Law enforcement is often subject to similar prejudices: as it successfully
manages the protocols and provides security to the political class, but it appears
to be vindictive and completely indifferent, when it comes to ordinary people.23
Another example is the financial bias which introduces tax amnesty schemes to
provide an opportunity for influential people to whiten their black money. 24
Such examples suggest that accountability mechanisms have, indeed, been
established in fragile and polarized political and social environments with the
false hopes that every corrupt individual could be prosecuted through enforced
laws.
National Anti-Corruption Strategy-2002 (NACS-2002) and NAO-1999 are
cited as comprehensive policy approaches to root out corruption from Pakistan.
NAB is the supreme anti-corruption authority of Pakistan. It was established to
eradicate corruption in a holistic and integrated manner and to make Pakistan
corruption-free. Almost twenty years have passed since the existing system of
accountability is in place, contrary to the deafening rhetoric of its effectiveness,
there is a significant disjuncture between its vision and the actual outcome, as
Pakistan is presently facing the worst challenges of systemic corruption and an
abhorrent state of accountability. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has also
pointed out serious maladministration, improper procedures and lack of
supervision in NAB. There is a lot of hue and cry from different segments of
society about the necessity of rationalizing the NAB. It has not been free from
political influence and is perceived as a tool in the hands of sitting governments.
Recently, the NAO-1999 has been amended without any legislative input of all
the stakeholders, precisely in the way NACS-2002 was approved. The proposed

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 85

amendments are generally focused on avoiding the process of accountability in

one way or the other. Politicians' growing criticism is that the existing system of
accountability is neither transparent nor across-the-board, as the laws and
procedures are "discriminatory, mala fide and tinted with the victimization of
the political class". It is argued that like separate military and judiciary’s system
of accountability, politicians should also be excluded from the jurisdiction of
NAB and be made accountable to a parliamentary mechanism for
accountability.
In order to promote and reward the process for whistle-blower information
on wrongdoing and to protect whistle-blowers from disadvantageous measures,
a bill entitled 'Whistle-blower Protection and Vigilance Commission' is still
awaiting the consensual approval by the parliament. It is, however, argued that
while legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not include coverage of
the public and private sectors, since it is limited to complaints against public
office holders to the Commission relating to specific offences.

A Possible Way Forward

There is not a single voice ever raised from any quarter to propose the
adoption of an accountability process in Pakistan in its core sense. This article
argues that corruption is systemic in Pakistan, wherein, the existing
accountability process is badly entangled in dealing with financial corruption
only. There is a dire need to promote the culture of responsibility and
answerability. Generally, people are not bad, but a corrupt system forces them
to get involved in several types of corrupt practices. Therefore, to control
systemic corruption, the systems need to be fixed.
Indubitably, an efficient accountability system essentially comprises two
complementary components; stringent accountability law, and an independent
agency to enforce the law strictly. Indeed, no accountability system devoid of
these components can be capable of delivering anything exceptional. There is a
need to formulate a clear, simple, comprehensive, and rational National
Accountability Policy of Pakistan founded on the core concept of accountability
that “everyone is responsible and answerable to justify his/her action(s) when
called by the designated authority.” The policy based on a robust theoretical
foundation should be all-encompassing and not be confined to the financial
facet of accountability only. It should preferably include the political, financial,
personal, moral, procedural and performance realms. The foremost requirement
is of political will and determination to face stiff resistance and reaction from
different quarters. The policy should apply across the board without any
discrimination, segregation and exception covering all segments of the society.
There should not be any self-system of accountability. Forums for disciplinary
actions and other related matters under respective laws, rules and regulations

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

86 EJAZ AHMED

for persons belonging to judiciary, armed forces and bureaucracy can remain
functional. However, accountability should remain the sole responsibility of the
designated authority to examine and prosecute matters concerning corruption
and corrupt activities. The designated authority should either be created anew
or revitalized from the existing forum(s) after reviewing their composition,
mandate and jurisdiction. It should be a fully independent and autonomous
body to implement the law in true letter and spirit. It should be a
statutory/independent body to oversee all types of corruption in Pakistan. All
other parallel forums for accountability may continue functioning and be
gradually reformed. Whistle-blower provisions and protection is a vital way to
address the culture of tolerance of unethical practices, therefore people should
be provided with the means to disclose any misuse of authority or acts of
wrongdoing responsibly.
Research on existing successful and effective functioning of accountability
mechanisms of different countries has identified different patterns to combat
systemic corruption. However, after a detailed study of the laws that govern
accountability organizations, their structure, scope, powers, effectiveness and
performance over the years, it has been found that the accountability system of
Hong Kong is more relevant to the prevailing environment of Pakistan. 25 The
Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) established in 1974 is the
principal agency authorized to investigate corruption offences under the main
anti-corruption law, i.e. the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), along
with offences under the Independent Commission against Corruption
Ordinance and the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. It not
only governs corruption in the public and private sectors but is also authorized
to deal with corruption in various public elections, including that of the Chief
Executive. It was built upon a tripartite strategy comprising enforcement,
prevention and community-based education. The Commission has powers of
arrest, detention, granting bail, search and seizure for alleged offences.
However, after completion of investigations, the prosecution is handed over to
the Department of Justice. In terms of effectiveness and performance, ICAC has
excelled as an anti-corruption agency and is recognized internationally for its
efforts. Hong Kong is ranked 16th out of 180 countries as per the Transparency
International's Corruption Perceptions Index-2019.26

Conclusion
This study is a modest endeavour to make people understand the basic
aspects of the concept of accountability from academic perspective. The two
concepts; virtue and mechanism, are equally valuable while studying or
debating the concept of accountability, both are closely related but not
reciprocally reinforcing. Virtues are formed, adopted, and, if required, adjusted
through an appropriate mechanism but it cannot be the other way round.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

 ACCOUNTABILITY IN PAKISTAN: AN ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE 87

Effective and efficient accountability mechanism ensures that people follow the
virtuous path. Whistleblowing plays a vital role in the worldwide detection and
prevention of frauds and other wrongdoings. Governments are therefore liable
for protecting whistle-blowers through legislation. Protection against
whistleblowing must be given to employees of both the public and private
sectors. The whistle-blower's role can severely be undermined due to a lack of
expertise of those who are responsible for implementing whistleblowing
legislation. Regrettably, most of the accountability drives in Pakistan have been
the typical witch-hunting exercises to victimize the political opponents during
the successive regimes. Therefore, in the absence of political will and required
resolution on the part of their formulators, all the accountability regimes have
badly failed in evolving some vibrant accountability institutions in Pakistan.
Eradication of corruption is, therefore, an increasingly essential factor in
sustaining Pakistan's reputation in the comity of nations. Finally, being
Muslims, we believe beyond doubt that we are subjected to hisab in the life
hereafter for our deeds in this world. Hence, we need to ensure that our deeds
in this world comply with the Commandments of Allah the Almighty.

Endnotes

1
Corruption perception index, (Transparency International, 2020),
http://www.transparency.org.
2
Raza Rabbani, Open Letter to People of Pakistan, (Mehergarh A Centre for Learning, 2011),
https://mehergarh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Open-letter-by-Senator-Mian-Raza-
Rabbani-to-the-people-of-Pakistan1.pdf
3
Melvin J. Dubnick, Seeking Salvation for Accountability, (American Political Science
Association, 2002).
4
(Oxford English Dictionary n.d).
5
Richard Mulgan, “Accountability: An Ever-Expanding Concept?” Public Administration 78,
no. 3: 555–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00218.
6
Melvin J. Dubnick, “Accountability And Ethics: Reconsidering the Relationships.”
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 6 (2003).
https://scholars.unh.edu/polisci_facpub.
7
Jonathan Koppell, “Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of Multiple
Accountabilities Disorder”, Public Administration Review 65, no.1 (2005) : 94-108.
8
Walter Bryce Gallie, Essentially Contested Concepts (Oxford University Press, 1962), 121–146.
9
Elizabeth Fisher, “The European Union in the Age of Accountability,” Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies (2004), https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/24.3.495.
10
Saeed Askary and Frank L. Clarke, Accounting in the Koranic Verses, Proceedings of the
conference on Account, Commerce and Finance: The Islamic Perspective (Sydney:
University of Western Sydney, 1997).
11
Mark Bovens, “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a
Mechanism,” West European Politics 33, no. 5 (2010): 946-967,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010. 486119.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]

 88 EJAZ AHMED

12
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. n.d., September 2, 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.
13
Dilys M. Hill, “Patricia Day and Rudolph Klein, Accountabilities: Five Public Services,
Tavistock Publications, London, 1987. 250 Pp. Paper £9.95,” Journal of Social Policy 17, no.
2 (1988): 262- 264, doi:10.1017/S0047279400016780.
14
Mark Bovens, 2007. “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework,”
European Law Journal 13, no.4 (2007): 447–68,
https://www.academia.edu/28321605/Analysing_and_Assessing_Accountability_A_Conce
ptual_Framework.
15
Dennis F. Thompson, “Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many
Hands,” The American Political Science Review 74, no. 4 (1980) : 905-916,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1954312.
16
Lydia Mechtenberg, Gerd Muehlheusser, and Andreas Roider, “Whistleblower
protection: Theory and experimental evidence,” European Economic Review 126 (2020).
17
B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, The Politicization of the Civil Service in Comparative
Perspective (London: A Quest for Control, 2004), 312,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799857.
18
Kiran Khurshid, A Treatise on the Civil Service of Pakistan: The Structural-Functional
History (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 2011), 342.
19
Andrew Wilder, “The Politics of Civil Service Reform in Pakistan,” Journal of International
Affairs 63, no. 1 (2009): 19.
20
Habib Zafarullah and Muhammad Yeahia Akhter, “Military Rule, Civilianisation and
Electoral Corruption: Pakistan and Bangladesh in Perspective,” Asian Studies Review 25,
no. 1 (2001): 73- 94, https://doi.org/10.1080/10357820108713296.
21
Tasneem Kousar, "Judicialization of politics and governance in Pakistan: constitutional
and political challenges and the role of the Chaudhry Court," in Pakistan's Stability
Paradox: Domestic, Regional and International Dimensions (London: Routledge, 2013),
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203804254.
22
Jan Mohammed Dawood, The Role of Superior Judiciary in the Politics of Pakistan
(Karachi: Royal Book Company, 1994); Deadbeats got loans of 54 billion Written off loans v.
Supreme Court of Pakistan (2007).
23
Paul Petzschmann, Pakistan’s Police between Centralization and Devolution, (Oslo:
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2010).
24
M. Levi and M. Suddle, “White-Collar Crime, Shamelessness, and Disintegration: The
Control of Tax Evasion in Pakistan,” Journal of Law and Society 16, no. 4(1989) : 489-505,
https://doi.org/10.2307/1410334.
25
Alia Ahmed and Munir Ahmed, Accountability Structure :A Comparative Analysis,
(PILDAT Report, 2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2592040.
26
Same as 1.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XII, 2020 [75-88]